This is the latest monthly report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Note that the motion picture and video industry were listed as the second highest businesses to experience mass layoffs in February 2004 (see table A).

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mmls.nr0.htm

As a lecturer in film school once asked a class I was taking, "Why do you want to be in a business that regularly sees close to 90% unemployment?" And that was back in the '80s.

Even though its just the way the industry goes, do you think they'll try blaming this rash of layoffs on bootlegged videos and Kazaa?

I think they'll blame all the kids running around with VX2000s shooting weddings and trying to sell news footage to raise money for their film projects.

If the bulk of that 90% in layoffs has anything to do with television production (including writers) then there should not be any surprise as, IMHO, 90% of television is garbage/rubbish anyway. You could just about say the same for film.

You could say the same for everything (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/s/SturgeonsLaw.html). Doesn't mean 90% of people need be out of work.

I agree, it is sad when individuals who wish to work are out of work. Perhaps the next generation of individuals who will produce quality video/film are out there right now learning their craft, and who knows, some of those individuals may even frequent this forum. Now that is an exciting prospect.

Could It be that they fired all the actors and hired nobodys to do their reality TV shows??? The reality shows are more popular, they cost much much less to make.. What a novel idea.. ????

I see this as a layoff / cutback IN an industry, not necessarily TO an industry.

Here's what I've been seeing happening, a trend if you will.

1. Back in the day, you had the big film crews (hollywood & high budget movies), and you had the small timers who shot a spool or two of 16mm once a year.

To get this raw footage in front of the final custumer in the proper viewable format, the process involves lots of full time labor to make it all happen.

a: Film must be deloped and archived
b: Film must be color corrected
c: Film must be re-loaded into some offline editing machine so the editors could even access the footage. From there you need a sound guy at a studio for each eek and peek of audio in your film. Audios respoken in a studio (because the camera crews themselves don't have the budget to buy qaulity mics from the start.

You've got an online sessiopn, an offline sessionk - usually huge expense in equipment and experience must all come together to somehow take a bunch of worthless tape on spools and turn it into something that could end up on a DVD or TV at some acceptable quality level.


Well, boys n' girls... the game has changed. I never played with any of this stuff and my well have lost some customers becuase of this, but I've invested in TIME (yes, this is an actuall planned investment) to learn the latest and greatest software. Now, it's all on the desktop.

Give me a few DV tapes, and a box loaded with Adobe Video Suite - and I'll have your final master done in an hour, single handedly. It will be done faster than the "old school" way, and it will be much less expensive.

As technology chages, as technology dusts the previous technolougy under the rug - soo too go with it those who make a living with these services.

Here is still plenty of work, it's just the fact that the work no longer takes so damn many people to acomplish. If your ownly l qualification with your past employer - grabe the client list, throw down som $$$ on a DVD dupe machine, and dupe em' didks. Find other producters who need this. Hand you a disk, you copy it. No problem. You'll then make for from this than full time with the other outfit.

The industry no longer requers all the labor. People get cut, but they are not done. They can cry a few tears and change careers, give up and not come back. Our, the can adapt a bit, and realize that they single handeldly can run an operation of their own

The market is STILL out there. You need to get in your CUSTOMERS HEAD and clearly dispklay that your product fills their needs. Done. Sales are back up.

Seems pretty simple, actually.

-Kevin

<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin King : I see this as a layoff / cutback IN an industry, not necessarily TO an industry.

...

Give me a few DV tapes, and a box loaded with Adobe Video Suite - and I'll have your final master done in an hour, single handedly. It will be done faster than the "old school" way, and it will be much less expensive.

-->>>

I really hope you're not somehow suggesting miniDV cams with onboard mics and adobe PC-editing as a replacement for 16/35 film, professional color timers, professional recording engineers, etc. I'm sure the day will come when there is an entirely digital, and streamlined process to replace shooting on film, reviewing dailies, and making multiple intermediary cuts. In fact, i'm excited to see how big DI is already starting to get.. but that's still using digital realm as an intermediary format.. definitely not the same as shooting straight on miniDV and then printing directly to DVD.

I would say there is about a 1% (or less) correllation between miniDV anything, consumer PC NLE anything, and a reduction of available jobs in the movie/tv industry.

and for my money, re: your statement about the "latest and greatest" software.. (again, for my money) it is neither affordable, nor available on windows desktop applications.

I agree with Adam.

The main thing to remember is that Hollywood does not look at us. They don't care about us unless you're talking Blair Witch - which probably had them talking for about a couple of weeks way back then. Since then, miniDV and everything else that's not a multi-million dollar potential blockbluster isn't even a pimple on their arse.

It's a numbers game - we can shoot cheap. Therefore, our profits are cheap too...not millions and millions of dollars. They can dump millions on projects and do whatever is needed to "potentially" see millions in profits.

We sometimes forget that distribution is king...not really content. (ok, i made that up. but, i really think it's true if you wanna make money. it's about distribution and people forking over $$$.)

In 10 years I bet Hollywood will have fragmented. But, it's still similar to how it's always been...and will always kinda be. It's going to tower over us no matter what because they'll do whatever they need to...they have stock holders remember! (we don't!)

Murph

Spend enough time discussing this kinda thing online, and you'll quickly find yourself wrapped up in the theory side of things, becoming somewhat oblivious to the practicalities of the real world. I speak from experience, it's happened to me before. Still, I'd like to chime in.

Mr. King, I ask you to seriously consider just how easy it is for someone to "adapt", or switch careers, at the drop of a hat, simply because somebody's being a cheapskate. There are families to feed, bills to pay, and we all damn well know the only reason for such "downsizing" is profits. Not a concern for quality (as if there were an INCREASE going to DV over film, anyway), not even a NEED to lower costs, but a DESIRE to make more money. Sounds simplistic and whiney, but it's true.

Take plumbing, for example. Where it used to take several workers a few days (or weeks) to lay out a cast iron based drainage system, a single man can do the same job in half the time using PVC. It's lighter, easier to use, and a hell of a lot cheaper. The overall job is less expensive. Makes sense for a home, if you don't have much money to spend.

The problem comes in that price is all anyone looks at anymore. Quality should be at the top of the list, if you ask me, or even if you didn't. As much as I prefer cast iron over plastic, the fact of the matter is that I'd rather see a professionally layed out, properly installed PVC setup than a half-assed, sloppy cast iron job.

But quality costs money, and while it's certainly possible to put together a solid, professional production in a DV format, on your home computer, by yourself, it's cheaper to hire Joe Schmoe video producer who thinks he's hot **** fun, paying him noodles while the good guys are out of work. The client may learn their lesson when faced with an amateurish result, but by then it's too late, and bill deadlines have already passed for the pros.

It's easy enough to tell people "all you've got to do is adapt" when you haven't had to do it yourself, something I've done in the past (albeit with other industries), which is why I ask that you more carefully think about the repercussions of such a suggestion.

Because, mark my words, before long, we will ALL have to adapt, even the new generation of computer-based one man shops; with production in Canada--and eventually, no doubt, Taiwan, China, and other such countries--getting cheaper every day, it won't be long before everybody's out of work. Including, with any luck, the bean counters responsible for all these cutbacks. :)

Before this thread spins too deeply into occupational and social theory, and emotions become chafed, let's roll the tape back to Marco's original reference to the the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report. While I am not an economist myself I spent many years around economists. I feel very confident remarking that, by itself, that BLS "report" is meaningless. You cannot use it to draw any conclusions or projections whatsoever.

The BLS vomits dozens of reports and datasets each month and each calendar quarter. The version to which Marco linked in his original post is a "press release" distillation of several other (much) larger statistical reports, the most useful of which are published quarterly.

To interpret BLS data you need to understand how it's collected and the nature of each sector of the report. Film and television industry employment data is, by nature, very flakey and often, and easily, manipulated by those reporting it. Meaningful interpretation of its data relies heavily on observation of long-term trends and knowledge of the true composition of the figures reported. Knowing a bit about this subject, I can virtually guarantee that the unemployment "spike" has no bearing on the impact of digital video, desktop nle's, the advent of consumer 24p cameras, or any other such issue that might be contemplated here.

Long winded way of recommending that we keep mole hills in their proper perspective and reserve creative speculation for more entertaining venues.

Oh....oh, yeah. Heh, sorry; forgot about that whole "original point" thing. Apologies.

As for chafing emotions, rest assured, Ken (and, more directly, Kevin), I mean no harm. Just trying to offer a different perspective, is all.

Though I think my own incessant ranting and raving proves my point about the difference between theory and practice, no? :)

I hope I'm not intruding on a big boy discussion, because I know the experience I have compared to you is small. However, I do have an observation: The way I see it, if equiptment between professionals and rookies keeps equalizing, if small productions have the chance to completely create their vision, if the common folk have fair opportunitys, then the playing fields will be leveled. Film will become, at last, an entirely artistic medium (not an industry). People will recieve awards and wallspace in museums for what they have done with their minds...not with their checkbooks. And thats a good thing.

What an excellent discussion this turned into. I take no offense Robert (and others) - Your points are valid.

I really took notice as this happened in the photography industry, and I feel the same is quickly happening to video.

I started in the art world several years ago - old school style. Black and white TriX, hand developed, and hours of labor under an enlarger - back when cutout paper taped to bailing wire was the only "burn and dodge" tool available. The smell of stale chemical developer - fond memories.

I remember sending out a negative to be "scanned" by a processing facility. I got a 1.44 floppy back with a whopping huge 1.2 MB file of my scanned image. My computer's hard drive was about 20 MB at the time.

"Digital" photography? When pigs fly. I'd seen pics from "digital" cams in photo magazines, touting they would be pushing the 1 megapixle level in "under five years". A laugh and a drink later, it was back to the darkroom to do "real" work.

We see where this is going. When real digital cameras came along (SLR's at 3+ MP costing under $2000) - actual, inspired art began to appear. These "kids" were spending more time studying a subject with true VISION while I was mixing chemicals in the darkroom - and it all happened overnight.


So where does that leave us? I have no doubt what so ever that a fully digital camera, recording to a cassette or hard drive based system, will shoot resolutions equal to that of 35mm motion picture film. It'll happen for well under $5000, and the software to edit anything in your minds eye will be available for under $2000. And it'll happen by the end of the decade.

There IS a whole new generation of artists growing up in this craft. Most have never heard of an "online session" - but the shots they are thinking up and producing in a morning's work would shock even Lucas himself. They are not limited by the technology - only what they can come up with in their mind's eye.

To top it all off, broadband internet just cracking the surface. It won't be long when putting up your own TV station is as simple as buying a domain name. Top that with truly inspired artists - and entertainment as we know it is changing.

We can cry about it all we want. I'm sure the gold miners of the old west cried in many a brew over increased competition, plummeting value of the day's take - ghosts towns were the economic centers of the world - in their day. The smart miners found other ways to pedal their trade, and their great grandchildren own most of the current day oil fields in Texas.

"Other hockey players go where the puck is, I go where the puck is going to be." -W. Gretzkey

;-) Long post - but I needed to stir the pot.

Let's not lose sight that those numbers equate to a lot of people not working.

The advances in technology have very little to do with it, and besides, advances in technology have a way of always leveling out the job market (you lose a Technicolor Color Consultant, you gain a video assist person, etc.).

Commercial films are basically shot the same way now as they were in Edison's day (you still need a script, a director, a DP, an assistant, an editor, a post house -- just as you did then). It takes just about the same number of support personnel to run a Panny Genesis, as it did a Panny R200.

Technology can compress the time frame of accomplishing tasks in the film industry, but it can also add expense (CGI, etc.). The time required to bring a feature film to completion today is about half of what it was twenty years ago, but the below the line wages have more than doubled, so we make more money today for working less hours. Even with the inflation factor added in, crews still make more "take home" wages than they did in the past. The problem is getting a shot at those "take home" wages in the first place.

The heavy unemployment rate in the film craft industry is mostly due to productions no longer being shot "in town" (the so called runaway productions). If you look at last year's U.S. commercial feature film output, you will see that over half were not shot in the U.S.

While producers cite the need for locations or bigger production facilities as the main reason for shooting out of town, the truth is, it's the bottom line that dictates the filming location and crews.

DP's no longer have the option (except in rare cases) to take their regular crew on location with them. These days, it's very difficult to even take a key person or two with you (gaffer and operator, to name just two), so we have to form lasting alliances with their counterparts on out of town productions.

Meanwhile, our "regular" crews are unemployed (crews in Canada, Italy, France, and Spain, make about half of what an IA crew does in the U.S.) while the DP may take just a small cut, or even get a bump in fees.

To paraphrase a famous film quote; 'twas the bottom line that killed the U.S. movie industry.

My two lira,

Enzo Giobbé

Just saw this recently about Miramax (http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20950~2221843,00.html)